John Afoa cited.

by Artful_Dodger Tue 10 Apr 2012, 5:33 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/16480.php

Hoping he doesnt miss the Semi Final - was it dangerous?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NfO2jjNivyU

by eirebilly Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:25 pm

Got to love their consistency MrsP Wink

It is an absolute Joke, i honestly didnt even expect a ban but four weeks? Come on

by Rava Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:26 pm

MrsP wrote:Sam Warburton got 3 weeks.

How is Afoa's tackle 25% worse when Warburton dropped his guy?

Surely that is (one of) the grounds for appeal then?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:27 pm

Guessing here, but was the logic identical for the length of the ban, except for the extra IRB-are-getting-hot-on-this +1 week?

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:28 pm

Very poor decision and frankly I am beginning to get fed up with this new tip tackle phenomenon. Not so long ago that would have been considered a good tackle. I also think back to the atrocious yellow card given to Tipuric. Are these tackles even dangerous? I no longer hear the word "spear" tackle, which is lifting a player and driving them into the ground on their shoulder/head region (a quite clearly dangerous offence) but it is now "tip" tackles, where if you lift the player you are basically getting cited.

As for his replacement in this game, is Fitzgerald an option considering he has been out of action for a while now? Is he even fit atm? Court moving to tight-head is probably the best option if we are wanting to be conservative. Personally I say we take a risk and give Macklin a chance. Very inexperienced of course, but again I think we have a very conservative mindset being Irish fans. Is playing an inexperienced tight-head going to be worse than playing someone out of position? I think it is a risk worth taking personally.

by The Great Aukster Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:31 pm

I didn't see a lot of difference between the incident for the Ferris citing and the Afoa one, yet the outcomes are totally inconsistent with each other. I'm wondering if there is secretly a man with a machine from Lottery HQ who sits on the panel to advise on the length of ban?

by eirebilly Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:37 pm

When the incident happened, i seem to remember the ref saying "play on" and signaling advantage which to me says that he didnt deem the tackle bad at the time. Can anyone confirm this? I cant see YouTube at the moment.

by **Notch** Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:38 pm

I don't think Ulster will appeal the decision. It probably has more chance making things worse than better. They're out for blood with this kind of offence. It's the trendy kind of thing to come down hard on.

We'll just have to take it on the chin and win the semi-final anyway. Whatever happens now at least an Irish tighthead will get some big game experience.

by MrsP Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:38 pm

Aukster,

I'm sure a few in here would not like me to rehash the Ferris tackle. Suffice it to say they were very different in my opinion.

But why this ban is longer than Warbs?????

Headscratch

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:39 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:I didn't see a lot of difference between the incident for the Ferris citing and the Afoa one, yet the outcomes are totally inconsistent with each other. I'm wondering if there is secretly a man with a machine from Lottery HQ who sits on the panel to advise on the length of ban?

Aukster, really? Two legs instead of one? Arm virtually touching the deck the whole time versus arms around ball? 4 weeks seems harsh, but there are several differences

by dummy_half Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:43 pm

The problem with the judgement is the entry point - no way should this be deemed a mid-level offence, which implies to me that it was an act of intentional foul play.

In my view it was little more than a good tackle - Afoa got a good hit and wrapped his man, but the result was that he lifted the (would-be) ball carrier and ended up with him in a somewhat dangerous position. Afoa's actions were not to twist the player over or drop him on his head, although he did continue through the tackle resulting in pushing his man into the floor on his upper back.

If this sort of thing is being penalised, this case was no more than a low level offence, and at most a two week lay-off justified.

by JmD Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:45 pm

Ferris not happy:

Stephen Ferris ‏ @StephenFerris6
What is the game of rugby coming to???? #joke

by MrsP Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:46 pm

I fully agree dummy.

(That's sounds insulting, but it is your name!)

Can anyone tell me what a "Low entry point" tip tackle would look like if that is a mid entry one?

by formerly known as Sam Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:48 pm

Well I made my opinion on the matter clear earlier in the thread but I have no idea how they've decided the following:

he determined that the offence was at the mid-range entry point of six (6) weeks

Mid-range? I think Warburton got mid-range and that was worse as he dropped Clerc from a standing position. The Afoa incident was a citing as it was a piece of dangerous play but it was never anything other than low entry point as the tackle is clumsy and shows a) no malicious intent and b) no real control by Afoa (he doesn't drop or spear the Munster full back). It's a clumsy and dangerous tackle that should receive two weeks at the very most.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:50 pm

Is it really even dangerous though? What is the danger? A bruise?

by MrsP Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:54 pm

I think it is potentially dangerous in that the tackled player could easily land in a way which could cause a devastating neck injury.

I can understand the desire to make the sport as safe for players as we resonably can, however, I can not understand how this was regarded as more serious than Warbs and almost as bad as the Bradley Davies incident which wasn't even a tackle.

by formerly known as Sam Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:56 pm

In dropping someone from height onto their shoulder? I hold the belief that if you pick them up then it's on you to put them down safely. By safely I mean on their ar$e of on the flat of their back. Lifting a player and then landing him on his shoulder/neck/head is dangerous as the impact is concentrated on an area of the body that isn't designed for that sort of impact. As I said above the Afoa tackle should be the lowest entry point as he has no control in the tackle.

by clivemcl Thu 12 Apr 2012, 2:56 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is it really even dangerous though? What is the danger? A bruise?

This is what I keep saying Rory (and continually ignored).

The aim is to eradicate danger, and yet theres danger everywhere. They try to come up with technical details. The horizontal detail is simply wrong. Being above horizontal rotation does not equal danger. If you think of horizontal as 90degrees, i would suggest danger does not come into it until something more like 110/120 degrees at a push.

You can't ban danger from rugby. We have players running full tilt and both jumping up towards each other in the air challenging for a catch. We have all seen the horrendous collisions. Rugby IS danger.

What we can do is try to eliminate intentional dangerous acts and danger through silliness. If anyone thinks either of these were evident in the tackle in question, they need their head looked at!!!!!

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:01 pm

Rugby is a potentially dangerous sport in general, like many/most sports. Things do go wrong from time to time. It is highly unlikely that these tip tackles are ever going to result in any injury, especially if you consider the fact Davies didn't injure Ryan despite his "tackle" being the most malicious and dangerous "tackle" you could probably do. A malicious spear tackle is different from a tip tackle where you lift the player. I mean when a full back catches the ball, or when a second row leaps 10 foot into the air to catch a ball, the dangers are much greater, but that is just a part of the game.

by clivemcl Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:04 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is it really even dangerous though? What is the danger? A bruise?

This is what I keep saying Rory (and continually ignored).

The aim is to eradicate danger, and yet theres danger everywhere. They try to come up with technical details. The horizontal detail is simply wrong. Being above horizontal rotation does not equal danger. If you think of horizontal as 90degrees, i would suggest danger does not come into it until something more like 110/120 degrees at a push.

You can't ban danger from rugby. We have players running full tilt and both jumping up towards each other in the air challenging for a catch. We have all seen the horrendous collisions. Rugby IS danger.

What we can do is try to eliminate intentional dangerous acts and danger through silliness. ~~If anyone thinks either of these were evident in the tackle in question, they need their head looked at!!!!!~~Watched it again, It probably is dangerous. But the ban still doesnt add up compared with similar offenders.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:06 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:In dropping someone from height onto their shoulder? I hold the belief that if you pick them up then it's on you to put them down safely. By safely I mean on their ar$e of on the flat of their back. Lifting a player and then landing him on his shoulder/neck/head is dangerous as the impact is concentrated on an area of the body that isn't designed for that sort of impact. As I said above the Afoa tackle should be the lowest entry point as he has no control in the tackle.

I've been tackled like that many a time and nothing has happened. It was just a good tackle (from them, sucked on my part). It isn't exactly a huge height you are being dropped from, like a few feet at most. If you watch the wrestling in the olympics this year, I think you will be shocked to see just how much the body can take, as they are dropping each other from much worse positions on their shoulders/necks, and they just get back up and try to do the same to their opponent. I agree with you if we are talking a spear tackle, but like I said the spear tackle is rarely mentioned now and it is now the tip tackle that is apparently dangerous.

by MrsP Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:08 pm

I have to disagree Rory.

Just say for arguments sake that John Afoa had been more off balance than he was and had landed on Jones as they went down instead of beside him. If Jones' head had been in a slightly different place it could have caused a very serious injury.

No intent, no malice but still potentially dangerous.

I think the IRB are right to try to reduce the risk that comes when a player is turned through 90 degrees I just think this particular tackle has been poorly dealt with.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:13 pm

But rugby in general is a potentially dangerous sport. In a ruck you could have someone land on you a specific way, you yourself could land on someone else, you could fall as you catch a high ball or from a line-out, the scrum could collapse etc etc. It is a lot of ifs and buts. Afoa could have landed on Jones a different way and injured him, but then for practically all tackles you could say this or that could have happened. Look at the head clash between Trimble and Jones. Jones ducks and Trimble tackles his head. *If* Jones hadn't ducked, maybe that wouldn't have happened. See what I mean?

by MrsP Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:17 pm

I do see what you mean but there is a difference between incidents that just happen in the general run of play and those which result from infringing the laws.

It is against the laws of rugby to "tip" another player while both their feet are off the ground.

The severity of the sanction in this case is the issue I have, not the law itself.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:23 pm

Going by the law that basically means you lift a player so that both feet are off the ground, you have to put him back down on their feet again. How can you tackle the player if you can't "tip" them onto their back/side/whatever? It seems that lifting a player at all is now an infringement of the laws. Players would do well to not lift anyone they tackle, which in my opinion is silly.

by MrsP Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:26 pm

You don't have to put them back on their feet, but you can't have them land on their neck either.

by Kingshu Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:27 pm

MrsP wrote:I have to disagree Rory.

Just say for arguments sake that John Afoa had been more off balance than he was and had landed on Jones as they went down instead of beside him. If Jones' head had been in a slightly different place it could have caused a very serious injury.

No intent, no malice but still potentially dangerous.

I think the IRB are right to try to reduce the risk that comes when a player is turned through 90 degrees I just think this particular tackle has been poorly dealt with.

I agree with you MrsP it had the potentional to be dangerous, I think if Ulster did appeal it on the grounds that it should be low level entry point rather than mid level entry point that they would be successful, in getting it reduced to a 2 week ban, however there is a risk they could increase it and Afoa would miss the final (if we get there), I think management will take this on the chin, and fous on getting past Edinburgh and into the final with the best chance of winning every remaining game of the season.

If it happened at the start of the season it would have been applealed.

by Rava Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:27 pm

MrsP wrote:I do see what you mean but there is a difference between incidents that just happen in the general run of play and those which result from infringing the laws.

It is against the laws of rugby to "tip" another player while both their feet are off the ground.

The severity of the sanction in this case is the issue I have, not the law itself.

Get this woman a mug

and a packet of Nambarrie. Wink

I think she's in for a long evening.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:28 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Going by the law that basically means you lift a player so that both feet are off the ground, you have to put him back down on their feet again. How can you tackle the player if you can't "tip" them onto their back/side/whatever? It seems that lifting a player at all is now an infringement of the laws. Players would do well to not lift anyone they tackle, which in my opinion is silly.

Rory, I think the easiest way to make the judgement call on what is allowed and what is not is whether the legs go above the horizontal

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:28 pm

MrsP wrote:You don't have to put them back on their feet, but you can't have them land on their neck either.

I know but if you are tackling them onto their back/side then you do have to "tip" them, no?

by B91212 Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:28 pm

As a rugby fan in general I'm both shocked and disappointed in this ruling. Sometimes I feel that you can be a little biased where Ulster and their players are concerned Mrs P Wink

but on this occasion I feel that yours and every other Ulster fans sense of injustice is more than justified.

Ridiculous outcome.

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:30 pm

The law confuses me to be honest, with regards to what is a bad tackle and what isn't. It seems lifting anyone now is bad.

by Thomond Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:31 pm

Was it worth a citing? Yes

Was it a ban? Yes

Is it four weeks? No, 2/3 at most.

Jones, lands in the shoulder area, so it's worth some time out. The ruling is harsh but Afoa deserved a ban.

by Rava Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:34 pm

From the BBC website: -

Ulster have the right to appeal but indicated in a short statement that they will accept the punishment.

Onwards and upwards. We'll just have to make sure we win the semi-final to give him a chance of playing again this season.

by MrsP Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:35 pm

B91212 wrote:As a rugby fan in general I'm both shocked and disappointed in this ruling. Sometimes I feel that you can be a little biased where Ulster and their players are concerned Mrs P but on this occasion I feel that yours and every other Ulster fans sense of injustice is more than justified.

Ridiculous outcome.

I won't claim to be dispassionate where Ulster or Ireland are concerned B, but I do try to be fair.

Rory, if you lift someone you can not tip them beyond the horizontal so that they land on their head/neck/upper body. The sanction is a pen or a yellow card.

If you go farther and drop them from a height or drive them into the ground it is a red card and probably a ban.

If you pick someone up you risk a pen at least unless you return them safely to ground.

by clivemcl Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:37 pm

Agreed Rory, from time to time I find myself with my arms around a big lad. (On the rugby pitch just to clarrify). If he's massive, I drive my shoulder through his hip region whilst pulling his legs towards me. The idea is to get his legs to give way so that he falls backwards.

Is this illegal? Or is it ok to take his legs away from the ground as long as I don't lift? How big a lift counts? one inch? two inches?

I just think they need to look at the laws to try and find better criteria for identifying the level of danger.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:43 pm

clivemcl wrote:Agreed Rory, from time to time I find myself with my arms around a big lad. (On the rugby pitch just to clarrify). If he's massive, I drive my shoulder through his hip region whilst pulling his legs towards me. The idea is to get his legs to give way so that he falls backwards.

Is this illegal? Or is it ok to take his legs away from the ground as long as I don't lift? How big a lift counts? one inch? two inches?

I just think they need to look at the laws to try and find better criteria for identifying the level of danger.

Just remember 'horizontal', clive

by Thomond Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:43 pm

Lads, it was a ban, the time he got was unfair but it was a ban. Clvie that tackle is fine, you need to bring their legs above the elbow as far as I'm aware. The best way to do things isto lift the legs and drive him to ground. This is a good and legal dump tackle:

Spoiler:

by Guest Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:44 pm

Sam Warburton got three weeks as his offence warranted a Red card (and he got it), he admitted his guilt (which I suspect Afoa didn't) and also his good behaviour previously.

So pretty simple. No need to compare, no need to smell rats or mention bribery (an absurd comment) and if Ulster aren't appealing time to move on.

by BoyneRFC Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:45 pm

clivemcl wrote:Agreed Rory, from time to time I find myself with my arms around a big lad. (On the rugby pitch just to clarrify). If he's massive, I drive my shoulder through his hip region whilst pulling his legs towards me. The idea is to get his legs to give way so that he falls backwards.

Is this illegal? Or is it ok to take his legs away from the ground as long as I don't lift? How big a lift counts? one inch? two inches?

I just think they need to look at the laws to try and find better criteria for identifying the level of danger.

I think the hips cannot be flipped above the head. If you drive i with your shoulder and apply force (pulling) with your arms, the other player will fall flat on his bum.

You cannot lift a players hips above his head if you dont bring him back down to earth (let him go) which is what happened here.

Some may say he should have gotten a red card, but hey ho.

Ban is correct, more would have been too much.

by poissonrouge Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:48 pm

There needs to be some form of consistency in the punishments handed out. The citing committees vary according to which competition the incident occurs in, but the ban extends to play in any competition. Therefore potentially if you have a rather "weak" panel at say the international level, you lose out a few weeks, which may result in you losing the right to play in a few local matches, but doesnt stop you playing in the next international whihc may be a long time away, whereas you end up with a "strict" panel at a local level which has you out for ages.
As far as I am concerned there is a gross discrepancy between the last 3 bans handed out for "tip tackles" - namely Warburton - 3 wks for a clear tip and drop, albeit without malice aforethought,at a World Cup, 7 wks for Bradley Davies - a clearly deliberate and even more dangerous tip and drop after the whistle, and now 4 wks for an incident which although potentially dangerous, was in the grand scheme of things much less so than dropping someone from a height onto their shoulders and neck and which occurred in the course of what appears a legitimately attempted tackle which went wrong. Nowadays it is common to tackle "man and ball", and go for the chest or upper abdominal level rather than the old legs or ankles - to prevent the offload in the tackle and as I said once before in jest (on a previous thread dealing with an Ulster players tackle), all it takes is a vigorous upward motion by the tackled player to throw his legs above his body to generate a very good approximation of the illegal tackle by the tackler. (Before I get flamed by anyone I am not in the slightest making the suggestion that anything like that occurred in this instance.
No my argument is that if there is a need for a punitive component to the ban - why the h**l did they not hit Davies with a good penalty, because his actions definitely needed to be discouraged. I await with interest the next judgement on a "tip tackle" because at the present rate he could be hung drawn and quartered.

by MrsP Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:49 pm

I think it is fair to compare Rev.

Not smelling rats or conspiracies, just using a similar but probably less serious incident from the recent past. I wouldn't have wanted Warbs to have got a longer ban, just trying to work out how this was a more serious incident.

by clivemcl Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:49 pm

Dan Tuohy would have dropped the shoulder and bounced the tackle off though! Whistle

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:54 pm

Is it easier to say what looks to be dangerous as a spectator though? When it might not actually be so dangerous in reality. The players themselves don't seem particularly happy or seem to agree with these tip tackle bans, and they are the ones actually involved in these situations, and I'm sure most have been tackled this way before. Just something to consider.

by **rodders** Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:55 pm

MrsP wrote:
Rory, if you lift someone you can not tip them beyond the horizontal so that they land on their head/neck/upper body. The sanction is a pen or a yellow card.

I don't accept that Afoa did lift him.

It was the collision and drive through that lifted Jones of his feet. That is not a lift and in such instances there is feic all the tackler can do to control were the tackled player,who is still a moving object anyway, lands.

The whole thing is a big load of bollix. 'Lift' and 'tip' are just nonsence buzzwords.

I agree with Rory, there are far more dangerous things in the sport that aren't deemed illegal.

by Guest Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:58 pm

MrsP wrote:I think it is fair to compare Rev.

Not smelling rats or conspiracies, just using a similar but probably less serious incident from the recent past. I wouldn't have wanted Warbs to have got a longer ban, just trying to work out how this was a more serious incident.

The smelling rats comment wasn't specifically for you. It was more in reference to the bribery comment (which baffled me as to why it's even hinted).

I think the answer I gave explains it though. Afoa didn't get carded, while Warburton got red (and allegedly Afoa's is a red card tackle). Plus no admission of guilt (I'd imagine).

I didn't think it was a bad tackle, but I knew Afoa would get cited and a ban of sorts.

by Standulstermen Thu 12 Apr 2012, 3:59 pm

I think 2 weeks would have kept everyone fairly happy. Trendy topic and it probably deserved a ban but to have (as far as the erc are concerned) ended afoa's season over it is really rather poor.

Here s hoping the lads use this as motivation so the big man can come back for the final.

I'm not certain what the best option for ulster is now. If Fitzpatrick isnt going to be 100% then we have to start Macklin this weekend, see how he gets on with paddy mac. If he doesn't do well bring court in at TH next week. If he does, bring court in LH next week.

I should add is there an issue with different panels judging these be they erc, IRB or the individual unions?

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 12 Apr 2012, 4:00 pm

Can I also add that I do not want to come across as bitter or unable to accept the ban. Nothing I say will change the ban obviously. My argument is regarding tip tackles in general. Plus from an irish point of view I am trying to see this as a positive, and a way of an irish tight head getting a pretty massive chance to prove himself.

by Thomond Thu 12 Apr 2012, 4:02 pm

Rodders, he grabs his legs, of course he fecking lifts him. It deserved a ban, 4 weeks is too much but it was dangerous purely because Jones lands on his shoulder/neck area.

by **rodders** Thu 12 Apr 2012, 4:04 pm

BoyneRFC wrote:
I think the hips cannot be flipped above the head. If you drive i with your shoulder and apply force (pulling) with your arms, the other player will fall flat on his bum.

That is assuming the attacker runs straight on into the tacklers shoulder and that tackler has both feet planted and their weight distributed equally over both feet.

There are all sorts of different scenarios were the impact can result in a turning or twisting action, not all off which are down to the tackler or within their control.

Sir Isaac Newton described it in his second and third laws of motion. Its basic physics. The feicin IRB should read them! steam

by clivemcl Thu 12 Apr 2012, 4:04 pm

Some physics for you. A fast moving player comes in contact with a stationary tackler whose pivot point is his feet. What direction will the attacking player go in?

To me there should also be a difference made bwtween a tip backwards over your own shoulder and an offensive tip tackle forcing the player onto his own back.

When you run full pelt into a tackle you are well aware that there is danger involved.

by Sponsored content